Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piyush Kalia vs State Of Punjab on 25 September, 2017
Author: A.B. Chaudhari
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32527-2017
& CRM-M-32566-2017
Date of decision: September 25, 2017.
Piyush Kalia
... Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
Present: Shri R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Shri Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Shri Ramandeep Singh Sandhu, Sr. Dy. AG, Punjab.
A.B. Chaudhari, J. (Oral):
Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR Nos.52 and 53 dated
3.5.2017, registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to me the
registration certificate issued by the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems
of Medicine, Punjab, Chandigarh to point out that the petitioner is qualified
BAMS and duly registered with the said Board. I have seen the said
registration certificate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v/s State of
Punjab, 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 631 and would submit that the said decision
relates to Ayurveda. The decision in the case of Electropathy Medicos of
India v/s State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 AIR (Bombay) 22 rendered
1 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 29-09-2017 02:42:21 :::
by the Bombay High Court relates to electropathic course and has been
found to be not a part of homeopathic certificate. He therefore submits that
the said decision of the Bombay High Court is clearly distinguishable.
Learned Counsel for the State submits that there is no other
case of similar nature against the petitioner except these two cases. These
two cases are registered on the same day.
Having regard to the decision in the case of Dr. Mukhtiar
Chand (supra), I think the issue about the petitioner being allowed to store
huge quantity of drugs in respect of which FIRs have been lodged against
him, is clearly debatable. To my mind prima facie in the light of Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Ayurvedic doctors could
not be able to store huge quantity of drugs including Alprazom. Then, the
question herein is about the grant of regular bail. In view of the above
factors and in the wake of the fact that there is no other case against the
petitioner, I think the petitioner should be released on bail. In that view of
the matter, following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i)CRM Nos.32527 and 32566 of 2017 are allowed;
(ii) the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in both the afore-mentioned FIRs.
September 25, 2017. [ A.B. Chaudhari ] kadyan Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 29-09-2017 02:42:22 :::